United States v. Thoresen’s Empirical Analysis
428 F.2d 654 · 1970
Citation profile
102 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2011 · most notably Lewis v. United States (1980), United States v. Craven (1973)
102 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · Dandridge v. Williams · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * It was eminently reasonable for Congress to conclude that the indictment of an individual for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year is so often indicative of a propensity for violence that the indictment classification of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (h)(1) was justified in the public interest. * * *””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he fact that a particular discovery procedure is ‘permissive’ rather than ‘mandatory’ does not mean that permission may be arbitrarily denied. Where a defendant (sic), anticipating future grand jury proceedings involving himself, gives notice in advance that he will seek a transcript of the proceedings if an indictment is returned and offers to pay the expense of having a reporter in attendance or shows inability to pay, a sound exercise of discretion would ordinarily call for the granting of a motion that a reporter be in attendance.” 428 F.2d at 666 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... that Thoresen was entitled to an opportunity, at the trial, to establish the invalidity, under the Constitution, of the Maine conviction and to a determination of that issue, on the merits, by the trial court. [ United States v. Thoresen, 428 F. 2d 654, 664 (9 Cir.1970)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.